In the developing CNS, most growth cones confront the midline at one or multiple times during their journey and make the decision of whether to cross or not to cross. This decision is not a static one but rather changes according to the growth cone's history. For example, in the Drosophila ventral nerve cord, about 10% of the interneurons project their axons only on their own side, in some cases extending near the midline without crossing it. The other 90% of the interneurons first project their axons across the midline and then turn to project longitudinally on the other side, often extending near the midline. These growth cones, having crossed the midline once, never cross it again, in spite of their close proximity to the midline and the many commissural axons crossing it. This decision to cross or not to cross is not unique to Drosophila but is common to a variety of midline structures in all bilaterally symmetric nervous systems.
What midline signals and growth cone receptors control whether growth cones do or do not cross the midline? After crossing once, what mechanism prevents these growth cones from crossing again? A related issue concerns the nature of the midline as an intermediate target. If so many growth cones find the midline such an attractive structure, why do they cross over it rather than linger? Why do they leave the midline?
One approach to find the genes encoding the components of such a system is to screen for mutations in which either too many or too few axons cross the midline. Such a large-scale mutant screen was previously conducted in Drosophila, and led to the identification of two key genes: commissureless (comm) and roundabout (robo) (Seeger et al., 1993; reviewed by Tear et al., 1993). In comm mutant embryos, commissural growth cones initially orient toward the midline but then fail to cross it and instead recoil and extend on their own side. robo mutant embryos, on the other hand, display the opposite phenotype in that too many axons cross the midline; many growth cones that normally extend only on their own side instead now project across the midline and axons that normally cross the midline only once instead appear to cross and recross multiple times (Seeger et al, 1993; present disclosure). Double mutants of comm and robo display a robo-like phenotype.
How do comm and robo function to control midline crossing? Neither the initial paper on these genes (Seeger et al., 1993) nor the cloning of comm (Tear et al., 1996) resolved this question. comm encodes a novel surface protein expressed on midline cells. In fact, the comm paper (Tear et al., 1996) ended with the hope that future work would “ . . . help shed some light on the enigmatic function of Comm.”
U.S. Ser. No. 08/971,172 (Robo, A Novel Family of Polypeptides and Nucleic Acids, by inventors: Corey S. Goodman, Thomas Kidd, Kevin J. Mitchell and Guy Tear, now abandoned) discloses the cloning and characterization of robo in various species including Drosophila; Robo polypeptides and polypeptide-encoding nucleic acids are also disclosed and their genbank accession numbers referenced in Kidd et al. (1998) Cell 92, 205-215. robo encodes a new class of guidance receptor with 5 immunoglobulin (Ig) domains, 3 fibronectin type III domains, a transmembrane domain, and a long cy subfamily of Ig superfamily proteins that is highly conserved from fruit flies to mammals. The Robo ectodomains, and in particular the first two Ig domains, are highly conserved from fruit fly to human, while the cytoplasmic domains are more divergent. Nevertheless, the cytoplasmic domains contain three highly conserved short proline-rich motifs which may represent binding sites for SH3 or other binding domains in linker or signaling molecules.
For those axons that never cross the midline, Robo is expressed on their growth cones from the outset; for the majority of axons that do cross the midline, Robo is expressed at high levels on their growth cones only after they cross the midline. Transgenic rescue experiments in Drosophila reveal that Robo can function in a cell autonomous fashion, consistent with it functioning as a receptor. Thus, in Drosophila, Robo appears to function as the gatekeeper controlling midline crossing; growth cones expressing high levels of Robo are prevented from crossing the midline. Robo proteins in mammals function in a similar manner in controlling axon guidance.
U.S. Ser. No. 60/065,54 (Methods for Modulating Nerve Cell Function, by inventors: Corey S. Goodman, Thomas Kidd, Guy Tear, Claire Russell and Kevin Mitchell) discloses ectopic and overexpression studies revealing that Comm down-regulates Robo expression, demonstrating that Comm functions to suppress the Robo-mediated midline repulsion. These results show that the levels of Comm at the midline and Robo on growth cones are tightly intertwined and dynamically regulated to assure that only certain growth cones cross the midline, that those growth cones that cross do not linger at the midline, and that once they cross they never do so again.
Relevant Literature
Seeger, M., Tear, G., Ferres-Marco, D. and Goodman C. S. (1993) Neuron 10,409-426; Tear G., et al. (1996) Neuron 16, 501-514; Rothberg et al. (1990) Genes Dev 4, 2169-2187; Kidd et al. (1998) Cell 92, 205-215.